CEOExpress Blogger Private Label
 CEOExpress Home


 Total visits to this poll: 6168

This icon appears on your homepage
when there are new posts.

      Search Messages:           
 
AllThis Forum

Could we all benefit by limiting our reading (listening, watching) of the news?

Yes
No
I doubt I could do it, but I'd like to try
I have another opinion (of course you do)



Forum View Preference: Basic | AdvancedOpen Forums/Previous Polls | Suggest a Poll
Sort By Newest Sort By Newest 1-10 of 457 11-20 >>  Last >

1. Patricia Pomerleau CEOExpressSelect Member
     Forum Moderator
     (8/31/2018 5:09:12 PM)
     Message ID #310246

View All Related Messages

Of the important forces at work today, "the news" can be exhausting. Real news, fake news, Twitter "news", left and right news, "All the news that's fit to print" ... and if that's not exhausting, there's "BREAKING NEWS!"

Absorbing the news may be nothing but habit. Ask yourself if you truly are better off when you step back and take a breath after drinking from the information firehose. Consider these potential problems in our consumption:

  • First, the speed of news delivery has increased.

  • Second, the costs to produce news have dropped significantly.

  • Third, producers of news attempt to capture our brains.

  • Fourth, the incentives are misaligned.
Do you believe that most of what we read has value or not?From deep within a business consulting business comes this nugget:
The point is, most of what you read online today is pointless. It’s not important to your life. It’s not going to help you make better decisions. It’s not going to help you understand the world. It’s not going to help you develop deep and meaningful connections with the people around you. The only thing it’s really doing is altering your mood and perhaps your behavior.
  • Another analyist says "We’re surrounded by so much information that is of immediate interest to us that we feel overwhelmed by the never-ending pressure of trying to keep up with it all.”
  • Nobel laureate economist Herbert Simon offered this two-sentence assessment:
    What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.


    Would stop reading the news give you more time to read books and publications that have stood the test of time. Would you spend more time on other pursuits?

    How important is mainstream news to you?

    What system do you have in place to manage news?

    Do you think Twitter is good or bad or neutral?

    Thoughts?

    Editor's Note: We welcome comments, posts, and informed debate from a wide range of perspectives. Personal attacks, insulting/ vulgar posts, or repetitious/ false tirades have no place and can result in moderation or banning.
    Civility — Clear-minded criticism is welcome, but play the ball and not the person. This includes speculation about motives or what ‘sort of person’ someone is. Civility, gentle humor, and staying on topic are superior debating tools.
    Relevance — Please maintain focus on the topic at hand. Do not attempt to solve big problems in a single comment or to offer as fact what simply are opinions.
    Ponder before you post — It’s bad form to dominate a discussion either by multiple posts in a row or too many posts in a given forum.


    Message edited by user at 8/31/2018 5:10:51 PM

    2. D Robb
         (9/16/2018 1:20:49 AM)
         Message ID #310998

    This message is in response to Patricia Pomerleau ( message id #310246 )  View All Related Messages

    When you are fairly static you can safely pick up on what is going on around you by changes in your environment. However, for someone who moved a lot (military) or travels you need to get your clues and understanding from the news.
    You then discover that not every news source views the same events in the same way, but that doesn't (shouldn't) change the basic truth in the story.
    Except we have discovered some believe in alternative facts and multiple truths.

    3. D Robb
         (9/16/2018 1:38:08 AM)
         Message ID #310999

    View All Related Messages
    What first attracted me to CEOExpress was the easy access to newspapers from all over the world. I used that resource for several years before discovering the forum. I need to read several newspapers, from several countries, and from a full range of political perspectives, everyday to even begin to comprehend what is going on in the world.

    4. Joseph Lischka CEOExpressSelect Member
         (9/16/2018 2:47:27 AM)
         Message ID #311000

    View All Related Messages
    One phenomenon that appears to be on the increase in recent years is extreme overprotection of children and even young teens. There have been a number of recent news reports of police being called by concerned citizens because parents let their children go to a neighborhood park by themselves or let their kids walk the dog around the block unsupervised. I’ve seen numerous instances in my neighborhood where parents walk their 8-10 year old kids a half-block to the school bus stop and wait with the kids until the bus comes.

    Recent research of children and teens with overprotective parents has found they are more anxious, less socially skilled, have poorer coping skills and higher rates of depression. In addition, they don't transition to college well. Overprotection may also be one of the factors underlying the marked increase in child and teen suicides in recent years.

    There appears to be a general feeling that children are at greater risk today of kidnapping, abduction or molestation than when we were growing up. But the truth is that American children today are no more likely to be kidnapped or abducted than they were decades ago.

    According to an estimate from the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), there were just 105 kidnappings in America between late 2010 and late 2011. Ref https://reason.com/blog/2017/03/31/kidnapping-stats. (For reference, there were about 73.9 million children in America that year.) Just 65 of these kidnappings were committed by strangers. Less than half involved the abduction of a child under age 12. Only 14 percent of cases were still open after one week, and 92 percent of victims were recovered or returned alive.

    I submit that the primary reason that we are more afraid for our children now is the 24-hour news cycle that reinforces and amplifies that fear nationwide by obsessing over every incident, no matter how minor. Our Zenness would be improved and we would be considerably calmer if we limited ourselves to 30 minutes of local news per weekday and cultural news on weekends. Back in the day I got all of my news from the afternoon edition of the Denver Post and getting editorial comment from Gabriel Heatter on the wireless in the morning.

    Message edited by user at 9/16/2018 2:53:18 AM

    5. Paul F
         (9/16/2018 5:45:56 AM)
         Message ID #311001

    View All Related Messages
    https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1040680034573459456
    Enjoy the propaganda.

    6. T Cavanagh CEOExpressSelect Member
         (9/16/2018 6:20:08 AM)
         Message ID #311002

    View All Related Messages
    A recent Pew Research Center survey of 5,035 U.S. adults examined whether members of the public can recognize news as factual – something that’s capable of being proved or disproved by objective evidence – or as an opinion that reflects the beliefs and values of whoever expressed it.
    The main portion of the study, measured the public’s ability to distinguish between five factual statements and five opinion statements, found that a majority of Americans correctly identified at least three of the five statements in each set. But this result is only a little better than random guesses. Far fewer Americans got all five correct, and roughly a quarter got most or all wrong.

    A paradigm shift has occurred in the news business over the past 20 years, opinion is more profitable than straight up “news”, and it is directly related to how the product is delivered. Print is no longer viable, even television is fading fast, neither can compete with the internet. Those are simple facts.

    To further complicate matters, social media platforms, which generate all of their revenue from specifically targeted advertising, have discovered “news” is a very lucrative method to capture attention to their ads. The more time you spend on their site, the more opportunities for revenue.

    If it’s free, that means you are for sale. That hiking boot company spends tens of thousands of dollars each month for Google to capture your IP, and allow ads to follow around the internet, it is very effective

    The more clicks, the more revenue, and firms such as Google have morphed into a world wide utility, and an unregulated one at that. They blew off a multi billion dollar fine by the EU as if it was a speeding ticket.

    Google can easily manipulate public opinion, far easier than Putin ever dreamed of, and make no mistake, it is an International enitity, ruled by no country.

    Message edited by user at 9/16/2018 6:20:40 AM

    7. T Cavanagh CEOExpressSelect Member
         (9/16/2018 6:21:49 AM)
         Message ID #311003

    This message is in response to Paul F ( message id #311001 )  View All Related Messages

    I saw that! LOL

    A hurrince became like the Super Bowl

    8. Scott Walker
         (9/16/2018 9:04:15 AM)
         Message ID #311004

    View All Related Messages
    Could we all benefit by limiting our reading (listening, watching) of the news.

    Answer Yes

    Most tv broadcast news is today very biased.

    9. Noel Meyer
         (9/16/2018 9:50:23 AM)
         Message ID #311005

    View All Related Messages
    Could we all benefit by limiting our reading (listening, watching) of the news?

    1. I WONDER why the Founding Fathers made "Freedom of Speech" the First Amendment they created to protect IF news and the right of Americans to their opinions were not so important?

    2. I WONDER why Americans have always associated CENSORSHIP with forms of TYRANNY of governments that OPPRESS their peoples?

    3. TWITTER is not NEWS. What your wife's brother's second sister THINKS on or about ANYTHING is NEWS. TOO MUCH NEWS, there is nothing you can say about "TOO MUCH NEWS" that does not go against rights Americans cherish.

    4. Washington Post - New York Times - Fox News - THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER - if you want to "step back and limit your news sources" which would you eliminate?

    Remember NOT IN MY BCACK YARD? You eliminate "Fox News" and the CONSERVATIVES cry "FOUL". You eliminate NYT or the Post and others cry "CENSORSHIP"

    5. LIMIT OUR READING/LISTENING/WATCHING of the NEWS
    a. where would you (the public) have learned of the lies Trump has used were it not for FACT CHECKING of the media?
    b. where would you (the public) have learned of the scandals and criminal activities of powerful and elitist government activities were it not for the INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING of the media?
    c. ARE YOU REALLY ASKING AMERICANS to LIMIT THEIR READING ("Fire and Fury" "FEAR") when Americans like Trump choose not to take the time or spend the effort to read?

    6. THE PARTICULAR forum question sounds like what Trump wants Americans to do to protect him from impeachment and/or criminal action for his arrogant crimes against the nation.

    10. Scott Walker
         (9/16/2018 10:02:38 AM)
         Message ID #311006

    View All Related Messages
    Former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon is helping to craft the curriculum for a leadership course at a right-wing Roman Catholic institute in Italy, stepping up his efforts to influence conservative thinking in the church.

    Now isn’t that good news..
      1-10 of 457 11-20 >>  Last >